One of Accountability Now's major campaigns centers around one of its own members, a woman named Hanna Israel. The rumors Accountability Now spread were vague and inconsistent, and never explicitly alleged sexual abuse. But AN knew through the black art of insinuation, the if they were vague enough the take-home message would always be one thing: rape. And that's what they want.

But there was one problem: Hanna Israel had already stated clearly to her former partner that she was claiming emotional abuse, not sexual abuse. When AN began making more extreme abuse claims, this email to her former partner (who AN was labeling an "abuser", and rapist by insinuation), began to circulate.

Here is the email from Hanna Israel:

"No, you weren't sexually improper by forcing me to do something I didn't want to do, you didn't rape me."

Did Accountability Now call off their campaign? Of course not.

This exemplifies the twisted method of Accountability Now: through the use of vague language, they can always avoid being accused of making false allegations through insinuating sexual abuse, where in fact no such allegation exists.

Adam Weissman and company know that when you say someone was "abused", and refuse to give specifics, the listener will always err on the side of caution and assume the worst. So when AN says "so and so was abused and we can't give you any more information", the takeaway message is always one thing: rape.

So Adam and company: Why did you invent a sexual abuse allegation when her own words state otherwise? Why do you continue to be dishonest with the animal rights movement?